Follow us on social

google cta
2020-09-23t155218z_20709791_rc2f4j9ad172_rtrmadp_3_health-coronavirus-usa-hearing-scaled

Rand Paul wants to kill $650M missile sale to Saudi Arabia

But getting Democratic colleagues to sign on may be more difficult that he thought.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Rand Paul’s office told RS today that the Republican senator is readying a joint resolution of disapproval to stop the Biden Administration’s expected sale of $650 million worth of “defensive” air-to-air missiles or AMRAAMs, as well as 596 missile launches to Saudi Arabia, as announced on Nov. 4

“A message needs to be sent to Saudi Arabia that we don’t approve of their war in Yemen," Paul said in a statement to Responsible Statecraft.

The news was also confirmed in an Intercept report this afternoon in which Paul said he aims to file a privileged motion to stop the export, which would guarantee an immediate floor vote on whether to disapprove the sale. That vote could occur within the next two weeks, according to the Intercept's Sara Sirota.

Interestingly, the article centered around Paul’s interest in generating support from his Democratic colleagues, particularly those who have typically been on the same page when it comes to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state neighbor, UAE. But as the report suggests, Biden’s fellow Dems aren’t hopping on the bandwagon right away, at least not yet.

Sen. Bernie Sanders did not show outright skepticism. He told the Intercept that he has yet to see the details, but he’s “not unsympathetic” to what Paul is trying to do. (UPDATE: According to Sirota, Sanders' office now says it will co-sponsor Paul's resolution).

Other comments speak to what could be the sticking point for many others — the difference between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons. At the beginning of his term, President Biden pledged to end all assistance to Riyadh for its “offensive” operations in Yemen. In the months since, analysts have scratched their heads over what that really means and whether the administration would find loopholes through which to drive new arms sales to Saudi Arabia anyway (there is one, approved by the Trump administration, still on hold).

The State Department has justified this latest deal of AMRAAMs by saying they would be used to “defend” the Saudis from cross-border attacks by the Houthis. Critics have responded by saying Riyadh could easily use to the missiles to enforce the economic blockade on Yemen — a form of offensive warfare as it's put tens of millions of Yemenis at risk of starvation and disease.

So far, it sounds like Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., normally a Saudi arms critic, is not sure. “My position generally has been to support truly defensive weapons sales to the Saudis, while opposing sales that could be used in offensive operations, particularly in Yemen,” he told Sirota.

Paul’s action would follow a joint resolution of disapproval introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich.) last week. Meanwhile, Sanders and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would end all military assistance to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen (defensive, offensive, or otherwise). Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) passed similar language in the House version of the NDAA.


U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) looks on during a U.S. Senate Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing, September 23, 2020. Alex Edelman/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.